How did this become a debate about smoking? In response to the commenter who suggested smoking is okay, please let me suggest that you go ahead and use tobacco products but do it without forcing them on the rest of us, okay? Whenever people smoke, they cannot contain the smoke and it affects the rest of us, many of whom do not want it, a…
How did this become a debate about smoking? In response to the commenter who suggested smoking is okay, please let me suggest that you go ahead and use tobacco products but do it without forcing them on the rest of us, okay? Whenever people smoke, they cannot contain the smoke and it affects the rest of us, many of whom do not want it, are sickened by it and do not want our clothes to stink. So, please go ahead and chew tobacco, chew tobacco gum, use tobacco patches, use tobacco suppositories (if they are legal), whatever, just please also respect our personal property rights by not forcing smoke on the rest of us.
I don't smoke. I was just calling out the simplistic libtard bullshit that it causes cancer plus noting that it's effective against covid and also safer and more effective than the jab. Additionally, in longitudinal studies of mortality comparing laid back smokers with anti-smokers the smokers outlive the anti-smokers, who drop like flies. But feel free to get another booster if you're convinced they are so much safer and more effective against covid than smoking is.
This comment, too, is off topic, because nowhere in the article or comments does anyone suggest the initial jabs or boosters are anything but detrimental. Your posting would have had more credibility if seeing someone with the moniker "Awake... " did not appear to trash personal property rights of nonsmokers.
"Appear to" being the key terms. Your idiosycratic interpretation is just your opinion. It's worth nothing more than that. May I disrespectfully suggest you take a course in reading comprehension and also learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.
I'm hard to gaslight, justass. You can't control me. You can't even control yourself. You're not the moderator of your precious "rules based substack order." It's because of you overcontrolling "bureaucratic compulsives (with narcissistic features)" types that we're in this mess. Walensky and Fauci have the same thought patterns. It's what has driven the mandates and the entire vax agenda. They all believe their own bullshit, think there's one correct way etc and are overscrupulous and overconscientious about right and wrong. I can smell you guys a mile away. Hitler was hung up about justice and ethics too. He thought it was unjust and unethical not to kill the Jews. He also was a zealous antismoker, in contrast to Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. The nicotine would have inhibited his Parkinsons. His fanaticism probably cost him the war. Is this off topic? No, as I said, Fauci and Walensky have the same problem. It's your perspective taking deficits that determines what you think is on topic or off topic.
How did this become a debate about smoking? In response to the commenter who suggested smoking is okay, please let me suggest that you go ahead and use tobacco products but do it without forcing them on the rest of us, okay? Whenever people smoke, they cannot contain the smoke and it affects the rest of us, many of whom do not want it, are sickened by it and do not want our clothes to stink. So, please go ahead and chew tobacco, chew tobacco gum, use tobacco patches, use tobacco suppositories (if they are legal), whatever, just please also respect our personal property rights by not forcing smoke on the rest of us.
I don't smoke. I was just calling out the simplistic libtard bullshit that it causes cancer plus noting that it's effective against covid and also safer and more effective than the jab. Additionally, in longitudinal studies of mortality comparing laid back smokers with anti-smokers the smokers outlive the anti-smokers, who drop like flies. But feel free to get another booster if you're convinced they are so much safer and more effective against covid than smoking is.
This comment, too, is off topic, because nowhere in the article or comments does anyone suggest the initial jabs or boosters are anything but detrimental. Your posting would have had more credibility if seeing someone with the moniker "Awake... " did not appear to trash personal property rights of nonsmokers.
"Appear to" being the key terms. Your idiosycratic interpretation is just your opinion. It's worth nothing more than that. May I disrespectfully suggest you take a course in reading comprehension and also learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Again, off topic.
Maybe and maybe also in response to your "appears to."
I'm hard to gaslight, justass. You can't control me. You can't even control yourself. You're not the moderator of your precious "rules based substack order." It's because of you overcontrolling "bureaucratic compulsives (with narcissistic features)" types that we're in this mess. Walensky and Fauci have the same thought patterns. It's what has driven the mandates and the entire vax agenda. They all believe their own bullshit, think there's one correct way etc and are overscrupulous and overconscientious about right and wrong. I can smell you guys a mile away. Hitler was hung up about justice and ethics too. He thought it was unjust and unethical not to kill the Jews. He also was a zealous antismoker, in contrast to Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. The nicotine would have inhibited his Parkinsons. His fanaticism probably cost him the war. Is this off topic? No, as I said, Fauci and Walensky have the same problem. It's your perspective taking deficits that determines what you think is on topic or off topic.